[ Page 2563 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: In section A, I call the estimates of the Attorney General, and in the House I call second reading of Bill 2.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, be read a second time now.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 2 amends 21 provincial statutes to implement measures announced in the 1997 provincial budget. These amendments play a substantial role in the government's strategy for putting the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path, protecting provincial revenues, and maintaining fairness and efficiency in the provincial tax system.

The Agricultural Credit Act is amended to eliminate the agricultural land development special account. The agricultural land development program ended in 1995, and the account is therefore no longer required.

The Assessment Authority Act is amended to allow cost recovery from the British Columbia Assessment Authority for the assessment appeal system. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will continue to administer the appeal system, ensuring the full independence and accountability of the appeal process.

The Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act are amended to reflect the fact that the office of the chief investment officer is no longer included within the provincial treasury operations special account. The office of the chief investment officer invests trust funds and serves external clients, while the rest of the provincial treasury primarily serves government. The separation of the chief investment officer will establish the independence of those functions and also eliminate a potential conflict with the debt management branch of the provincial treasury.

The Financial Administration Act is also amended to change the definition of a full-time-equivalent employee so that the full-time-equivalent employment figures in salary dollars that are provided in the budget are more closely linked. In addition, this particular measure corresponds to recommendations from the auditor general. The act is further amended to change the disclosure of actual full-time-equivalent employment for a fiscal year from a forecast presented in estimates to actual full-time-equivalent employment presented in public accounts.

The Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act is amended to extend the termination date of the grazing enhancement program by five years, to the year 2005. This extension recognizes that a longer time horizon is required to implement and complete range enhancement projects than was anticipated when the account was originally established.

The Hotel Room Tax Act, the Tobacco Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act are amended to allow for the recovery of overpaid refunds. The government refunds $45 million annually to taxpayers through 15,000 refund claims. These refunds are provided for a wide variety of reasons. They range from refunds of taxes paid in error to statutory refunds of taxes paid for purchases such as eligible exploratory-mining equipment. Documentation is required for all refund claims to verify eligibility, and all claims are thoroughly reviewed prior to payment. However, subsequent audits do occasionally reveal either that a taxpayer was not eligible for a refund or that an overpayment was made, and in those circumstances these amendments will allow the government to recover those overpayments and allow the government to deal more expeditiously with large repeat-refund claims.

The Industrial Development Incentive Act is amended to increase the funding cap on the industrial incentive fund to $450 million from $400 million. This increase is necessary to enable the province to make strategic loans and investments in important economic development projects that will increase employment and help to diversify the economy.

The Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Logging Tax Act and the Mining Tax Act are amended through this bill to extend the appeal periods under these statutes to 90 days from 60 days. These amendments were suggested by tax practitioners. They will enhance consistency and fairness by standardizing appeal periods across all provincial taxation statutes to 90 days, as well as affording all citizens an adequate time to pursue appeals.

The Local Government Grants Act is amended to revise the procedures governing provincial transfers to local government in order to carry out the restructuring of grant programs announced in November 1996. As I think members of this House are aware, the federal government has fundamentally altered its grant structures to the province in a way that has resulted in major cost pressures on the provincial government. That ongoing off-loading by the federal government has made it difficult for the province to meet its goals without making adjustments and asking other levels of government to share in some of that pain.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I hear members of the opposition calling out. I have no doubt that they are wanting to remind members of this House of their encouragement to the federal government to further reduce those cuts in transfer payments. No doubt they'll want to bring to bear how they would therefore deal with that further reduction when they participate in this debate.

As part of our financial plan to cut the cost of government and to protect medicare and education in the face of federal off-loading, we are asking local governments to share in the responsibility of cost cuts. I'm pleased to see that most are doing so in a way that is not adding additional burdens on local taxpayers. However, funding for British Columbia's smallest communities, those that are most dependent upon provincial transfers, is going to be fully protected in this fiscal year. In addition, we expect that no community will be impacted this year by more than 3 percent of their total 1995 revenues.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, if members opposite really want to get into the debate and remind us of their insistence that the federal government further cut transfer payments to 

[ Page 2564 ]

the provinces, then I'm sure they'll have an adequate opportunity to do so. If they continue to try to interfere with my presentation, I will certainly respond by reminding people of that insistence on their part.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Fire Services Act are amended to remove uncertainty regarding the application of tax in certain circumstances. The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to clarify that the compressor-fuel tax rate applies to natural gas used in engines to compress gas or pump oil through transmission lines. The Fire Services Act is amended to clarify that the 1 percent imposed on policies insuring against fire apply to the full amount of the premiums under these policies. Both of these amendments add certainty for taxpayers by clarifying longstanding government policy.

[10:15]

Minor amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Property Transfer Tax Act are made to enhance fairness for certain taxpayers. The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to provide a refund of tax to bona fide farmers equal to the difference between the clear- and coloured-fuel tax rates for clear fuel used in family-farm trucks delivering farm products to the United States. This amendment became necessary as the result of a regulatory change in the United States which had the inadvertent effect of prohibiting the use of British Columbia's coloured fuel on American highways. This amendment simply reinstates a longstanding benefit to bona fide farmers through a refund program.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is also amended to implement the government's announcement to extend the existing exemption for road use of natural gas and alcohol-based fuels. This would allow natural gas and alcohol-based fuel distributors more time to establish their place in British Columbia's motor fuel market. A related amendment is made to ensure that propane used in motor vehicles off-highway is not taxed at a higher rate than propane used on-highway.

Three acts -- the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act -- are amended to discontinue the granting of new property tax exemptions for businesses and facilities used to control pollution. Land and improvements exempt in 1996 will be grandparented, so long as they are used for pollution control.

The continuing availability of new exemptions is no longer appropriate in this area, for several reasons. First, it violates the polluter-pay principle. Secondly, it creates a disincentive for companies to invest in non-polluting equipment as their primary objective. Today the cost of cleaning up pollution is the polluter's responsibility. We should ensure that our taxation statutes encourage and promote investments in pollution abatement at the front end, not at the back end. Second, the exemption is not fair, nor is it efficient. A plant that integrates pollution control into the production process is not eligible for an exemption, even though it may well be polluting less with its plant than if it were to apply separate pollution control equipment to more conventional equipment. Lastly, the exemption has proved difficult to administer. This is reflected in recent appeal board and court decisions that have extended the exemption far beyond its original intent.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to expand the exemption for transfers of family farms to or from family farm corporations. This amendment reflects the original intent of the existing exemption and the reality of family farm transfers. It exempts from tax the transfer of a family farm from a parent to a corporation in which two or more children are the sole shareholders.

The Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act is amended to enable the consolidation of all housing rent supplement programs under a single administrative body, the B.C. Housing Management Commission. This will increase the efficiency of housing program delivery and is yet another example of this government's commitment to try to make savings through increased administrative efficiency.

The Social Service Tax Act is amended to increase the minimum amount of refund permitted under the act to $10 from $1. The cost of processing refunds for amounts between $1 and $10 is about six times the amount of tax actually refunded. This amendment reduces these administrative costs and enhances consistency by standardizing the minimum refund amount under the statute with the minimum refund amounts under all other provincial consumption-tax statutes.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Some members across the way are reminding me of their recommendations in the past that this kind of change be made so that government does not incur undue costs for processing what are minimal refund amounts.

The South Moresby Implementation Account Act is amended to eliminate the forestry compensation subaccounts, since the acquisition of third-party forestry interests associated with the creation of the South Moresby National Park is complete, and the account is therefore no longer required.

The Tobacco Tax Act is amended to increase the tax rate on loose tobacco to 11 cents per gram from 8.4 cents per gram. This rate is comparable to that imposed on manufactured cigarettes on a per-gram basis. The change reflects the reality that the harmful effects of smoking are closely related to the amount of tobacco consumed, and therefore the tax structure should reflect that relationship. I might also say that this change helps to discourage tax avoidance by cigarette manufacturers, who have increasingly been using the device of creating tobacco sticks which are not taxed as cigarettes but are taxed on a loose-tobacco basis. This ensures that the tobacco within those sticks is taxed on the same per-gram basis as tobacco within cigarettes.

Finally, the Budget Measures Implementation Act contains a transitional section that enables the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to pay for certain losses incurred by government for reducing accidents, by promoting and improving highway safety. As members know, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is taking on a greater responsibility for road safety in its efforts to reduce accident costs. In the interim, these costs are being incurred by government pending the transfer of these functions to ICBC, and this act enables that fact to be recognized and dealt with.

G. Abbott: It's a honour for me to. . . . Excuse me, I'm not choked up; I'm just clearing my throat, here, on this black day.

I'm honoured to kick this off. Obviously I'm not very happy with the content of this bill. Anyone who has any association with municipal affairs has to view this as a very dark, black day in the history of municipal relations in the province. Today I will be concentrating my remarks on those proposed changes to the Local Government Grants Act which are contained in Bill 2.

Before I commence, I do want to say that I think it is absolutely shameful that this government has brought these tremendous, deceptive changes to the Local Government 

[ Page 2565 ]

Grants Act and thrown it into this omnibus bill, which covers everything from soup to nuts. If this government had the courage to face up to what they have done to local governments in this province, they would not have attempted to hide it in this omnibus bill. I think it's totally inappropriate that they have seen fit to attempt to disguise their motives in this way.

That having been said, I do want to begin, in my usual objective fashion, by discussing what the amendments contained in Bill 2 actually do to the Local Government Grants Act. First of all, referring to the bill -- we're on page 3 -- under Local Government Grants Act it reads: "Section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act. . .is repealed."

In the House the other day, the Minister of Municipal Affairs had some very amusing comments to offer about airbrushing. I think his comments would have been far more instructive had the Minister of Municipal Affairs used section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act as an example of airbrushing by this government, because what they've done is airbrushed out the most important, the most vital section of the Local Government Grants Act.

S. Hawkins: Shame!

G. Abbott: You're right; it's absolutely shameful.

This decision is going to haunt this NDP government forever. This is a fundamental breach of trust. This is a breach of everything that governments have tried to build up for decades, in terms of relations between the province and municipalities. That trust that has been built up over time has been fundamentally breached by this government. It's shameful, and this government is going to have to live with the legacy of that for a long, long time.

Just so we don't forget what section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act did, I'd just like to quote from a portion of section 2, because it helps to explain the very fundamental effect that the repeal of this particular section has on the act. Under "Municipal general grants," it reads:

"2(1) Without limiting section 1, the minister must pay out of the consolidated revenue fund in each fiscal year unconditional grants to municipalities in accordance with this section and the regulations.

(2) The total amount of grants that are to be paid under this section for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995 is $120 million and, for subsequent fiscal years, is the applicable amount calculated under subsections (3) to (5)."

I won't go through all of subsections (3) to (5); I'll just do subsection (3), which really gets to the heart of the structure of the Local Government Grants Act. Subsection (3) reads:

"The total amount to be paid under this section in a fiscal year is the amount paid in the previous fiscal year increased or decreased, as applicable, by the percentage change in the Provincial real gross domestic product between the calendar year in which the fiscal year for the grants begins and the preceding calendar year, to a maximum increase or decrease of 2%."

Now, there's a lot of gobbledegook there, but the important heart of the matter is that under section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act, municipalities across this province could depend on the kind and size of grant they would be receiving from the province. They could be confident that their grant would be within 2 percent, up or down, depending on how the economy was going from year to year. As I've said, this section is being repealed, it's being airbrushed out of existence, it's gone. And in the process of that, a fundamental breach of trust between the province and the municipalities in this province has occurred.

So what's left after the elimination, the airbrushing, of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act? Well, not a heck of a lot. In my opinion -- and perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs will offer us a different one -- the municipalities and regional districts in this province are left with absolutely no certainty, no predictability, no stability in funding from year to year.

I'll explain why. Under section 3, "Unconditional grants". . . . And this, again, forms part of Bill 2, so I think we can appreciate that this is exactly how grants are going to be structured in the province in the future -- at least as long as this pathetic attempt at a government remains in place, and hopefully that's not very long. Section 3 reads: "Without limiting section 1, the amount of a class of unconditional grants may be determined on the basis of one or more of the following" -- and one or more of the following is a very critical phrase here -- "as prescribed by regulation, but subject to any minimum or maximum prescribed by regulation."

The amended bill goes on to read as follows: ". . . (a) a fixed amount for each municipality or regional district." Well, who the heck is going to fix the amount except the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? There is absolutely no strength in this, and there's no comfort in this for municipalities and regional districts in this province: ". . . (b) the population of a municipality or regional district; (c) the total annual expenditures or revenues of a municipality or regional district; (d) the converted value of land and improvements within a municipality or regional district within the meaning of section 820 of the Municipal Act; (e) any other prescribed basis."

So what does this say, Mr. Speaker? It says, first of all, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs can use any one or all of these five elements in determining what municipal grants are going to be from year to year. For example, the minister might decide that in 1998 he is going to put all emphasis in determining municipal grants on subsection (e), which reads: ". . . any other prescribed basis." Now, that prescribed basis, of course, could be the minister's determination that in 1998 the province can afford to give absolutely no grants to municipalities. He determines that to be the prescribed basis, and away we go. So the grants to local government in 1998 could be zero dollars and zero cents if that is the appropriate amount, in the informed opinion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his government.

I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs can get up and correct me a little bit later on, but as I read this bill, there is absolutely nothing in Bill 2 which obliges the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as the representative of this NDP government, to provide any grant in excess of zero dollars and zero cents to municipalities in the province. As I say, I hope he's going to get up and correct me on this. I can't say that I'm really confident that he will. I suspect, in fact, that he's going to get up and confirm that all the certainty, all the predictability, is being airbrushed out of their relationship with municipalities in British Columbia.

[10:30]

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Absolutely right.

It's interesting as well that in the proposed new section 6, "Consultation with local governments," Bill 2 says: "At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities regarding the administration of grants under this Act."

S. Hawkins: There's nothing left to consult about.

[ Page 2566 ]

G. Abbott: Yeah. We've seen just what consultation means to this government in terms of its relations with municipalities in this province. It generally means that municipalities are invited to come to Victoria, and they can get up on the morning of the minister's announcement and read in the newspaper and hear on the radio and see on television that the decision has been rendered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his government.

The administration of the grant means nothing. Even in the shallowest sense, there is no commitment by the province -- this NDP government -- to consult with municipalities on the size of grants, for example. They don't have to consult on anything except the administration of the grants, and what the heck does that mean? Well, not very much. It means that we'll discuss what the name of the grant is going to be. Perhaps we'll talk about small communities' protection grants or equalization grants and what time of the year the grants will be delivered -- if indeed they're larger than zero dollars and zero cents. But there is nothing in this act which provides any of the certainty, stability and predictability which this government so proudly proclaimed just two years ago, when this Local Government Grants Act was brought in in British Columbia.

As you can see, I am not terribly impressed with what the province is doing here. In fact, I'm sure this is the worst exercise in amending a piece of provincial legislation that we have ever seen in the province. It's just astounding what this government has stripped out of the Local Government Grants Act. As I say, I think it would have been far more honest on the part of this government to simply take the Local Government Grants Act, repeal the act in whole and start again. Because there's nothing left here in terms of assurances to local governments about the way they're going to be dealt with in the future.

Before I go on to make some general comments about the way in which municipalities have been treated by this NDP government, I just want to mention briefly the references in the throne speech to federal downloading. We find, for example, on at least four occasions in the throne speech, laments about the bad, bad federal government and how they have downloaded onto the province and how this great NDP government has managed to somehow survive those cuts and do the wonderful things that they have done.

Surprisingly, despite the repeated references to federal downloading in the provincial throne speech of 1997, we find not one single reference to the province downloading in a far worse manner onto municipalities in this province. It's astonishing. Why the lack of candour? Why the lack of honesty here in terms of facing up to what you have done to municipalities in British Columbia? Why not say: "Hey, the federal government has downloaded on us, and we're going to download on municipalities and regional districts in just the same way. We're going to stick it to 'em, just like the federal government stuck us"? Why not be honest and say that? But no, there's absolutely no reference in the throne speech document to what this province has done to municipalities in British Columbia.

Further to that point, I'd like to briefly just mention the study which was commissioned by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This was prepared by Gary Williams and Associates, and it's entitled: "An Analysis of Intergovernmental Transfers, 1981-1995." It doesn't include the horrendous things that are going to happen this year as a consequence of the downloading that we're about to see as a consequence of the amendments to the Local Government Grants Act.

Let me just quote from the conclusions of this report by Gary Williams and Associates:

"The reduction in intergovernmental transfers started with the provincial government reducing funding to municipalities in 1982. Reductions in federal transfers to the province did not start until 1988. In terms of significance, over the 15 years since 1981 the reduction in transfer payments has been greater for municipalities than for the province no matter which of the three measurement methods is used. The notion that municipalities were somehow protected from federal transfer reductions is not supported by the evidence."

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I hear the Minister of Finance leaping to agree with me that in fact that's the case, and I appreciate that. That's excellent.

If I can just continue to complete the conclusions of Gary Williams, he says:

"There will be a significant reduction, 30 percent, in federal transfers to the province over the next two years, '96-97 and '97-98. This will be matched by a similar reduction, 30 percent, in transfers from the province to municipalities, but over only a one-year period. The province was given at least two years' notice of the changes; municipalities were given one month."

Oh, don't shake your head. This is absolutely right, Mr. Finance minister -- oh, sorry, Mr. Speaker; through you to the Finance minister. This is absolutely correct. "With respect to future transfer payments, municipalities will be treated more harshly by the province than the province will be treated by the federal government." Well, there, I think, we have from a good, reliable source exactly the conclusions which I mentioned earlier: that in fact this government chooses to treat consultation as a complete joke.

I remember attending a UBCM convention in Penticton last September. I remember the great fanfare that was associated with the Premier and his then Municipal Affairs minister signing a protocol on consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. So what did that mean? It was a wonderful photo op. It was a great photo op, seeing the birth of a new relationship between municipalities in this province and the provincial government. But what did it really mean in terms of the treatment that was accorded municipalities in regional districts in this province?

What it meant was that on November 26, members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities attended Victoria to hear a press conference held by the then Municipal Affairs minister. He was to advise what the extent of the cuts and transfers was going to be under the Local Government Grants Act. In fact, the executive members of UBCM that attended in Victoria that morning were to learn via the newspapers and via the radio and via the television that there were some horrendous cuts coming down and that the cuts via the Local Government Grants Act were going to be in the neighbourhood of $113 million.

So that was the sum of consultation -- a week, let me emphasize, before municipalities were obliged to tender their provisional budgets. A week before they had to tender those budgets, the Minister of Municipal Affairs finally fessed up that this government, in their desperation to try to give some appearance of having financial control in this province, was cutting them by $113 million.

K. Krueger: That's shameful.

[ Page 2567 ]

G. Abbott: And that's shameful; that's exactly right. It's entirely shameful, and it's entirely consistent with the absolutely shameful record of municipal relations in the province that we have seen under this NDP government.

What I'd like to do next, if I can find my next notes. . . . It's getting tricky, because I've got too much material on my desk here.

K. Krueger: It's because there's so much to deal with.

G. Abbott: Exactly, yes. Excellent. Thank you. There is a lot to deal with.

What I'd like to do, if I could, Mr. Speaker, is transport you back -- as I'm sure you'd like -- to 1994 and to the debates that occurred in this House with respect to the Local Government Grants Act. We'll all be approximately two years younger for a minute -- something which I think we could all look forward to -- and this will also, I'm sure, revive some beautiful memories for you of that day when the NDP government committed themselves to a new relationship with municipalities in this province.

Now, recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1994 the NDP government had a rather difficult problem on their hands. And the problem that they had was that they owed municipalities and regional districts in this province approximately $250 million under the provisions of the old Revenue Sharing Act. Obviously at that point in time the then Minister of Finance, who is today the Premier of British Columbia, didn't want to do that. The 250 million bucks wasn't there; they didn't want to pay it out. This was an embarrassment that they wanted to deal with.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Well, there's all kinds of embarrassments, and we don't want to start listing them, because that would get me off theme here.

What we want to talk about, though, is the. . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: You guys are off theme; you guys never are on theme.

Back in 1994, the then Municipal Affairs minister had this difficult problem of the $250 million to deal with. So what did they do? They said: "Well, let's bring some stability, certainty and predictability into this. We're not going to give you the $250 million, even though we owe it to you, but we will provide in lieu of that some certainty, predictability, under the Local Government Grants Act."

So what we had during the debates in 1994 -- and this is May 12, 1994 -- when the principal debate occurred on the Local Government Grants. . . . It's not that long ago -- just a little less than three years ago. Some of the quotes are very exactlyinteresting here, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you'll enjoy them, and I'm sure some members on the other side of the House will enjoy reliving these golden moments of relations with municipalities in the province.

S. Hawkins: Cause there ain't going to be too many of those. . . .

G. Abbott: There ain't gonna be too many more, so why not relive a couple right now -- exactly.

Here's the then Municipal Affairs minister:

"This year we revamped the revenue-sharing program to ensure stability and predictability. Bill 20 is still under debate, so I want to say a few words about it that bear on the estimates here. The Finance minister introduced the new Local Government Grants Act in the budget speech. This legislation will replace a program that has become unrealistic and unworkable. It was ineffective because it didn't deliver the certainty and predictability that local governments have requested for some years and desperately need."

Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, they don't need that anymore. I don't know what's happened in the last two or three years, but it appears that certainty and predictability. . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Right, the big bad feds downloaded on you guys, so you have to nail the municipalities.

And just to go on here, because it's obvious that members on the other side are calling for more. . . . They want to hear more of these quotes, so I'm pleased to oblige. I'll go on again, quoting the then Municipal Affairs minister:

"A key feature of the new act is an innovative clause that commits the government to annual consultation with the UBCM on grant administration and a thorough review of municipal general grant support every five years.

"The result has been a steady decline in the federal share of funding for essential services in the province, and stability becomes the key word for us in Municipal Affairs to do everything we possibly can to prevent further downloading onto the municipal governments."

Ho, ho. Isn't that a good one? "We are doing everything we can to ensure that municipalities can do their job." Wow! That was good.

And here's another:

"The former system of revenue-sharing was therefore completely ineffective almost from the day it was brought into being, and completely unaffordable by the early eighties. It was ineffective because it simply didn't deliver certainty and predictability that local governments desperately need by January 1 of each year."

[10:45]

Well, again, what has happened that means local governments no longer desperately need that stability and certainty? I would think that the need is even as acute, or more acute, today than it was back in 1994. But for some reason this government is able to completely gut the Local Government Grants Act, strip away all that certainty and predictability and provide something -- which I've noted earlier -- that can leave the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the position of saying: "In my opinion, the prescribed basis this year should be zero dollars and zero cents to municipalities and regional districts in this province."

Again, another quote. These are good, and I think these help to put things into perspective:

"The review of local government transfers, which we completed in September 1993 with a joint provincial-UBCM working group, led to the development of this new act. Bill 20 is an example of the kind of successful collaboration that is possible when two levels of government sit down and try with certainty, stability and predictability to give municipalities exactly what they are asking for in their relationship with the provincial government."

I saw just a note of pain cross the face of the Minister of Municipal Affairs when I mentioned that one, because it is. . . . I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is fundamentally a decent guy whom I enjoy seeing every day in this House. But he has a problem here, in that an act which he is 

[ Page 2568 ]

responsible for is being fundamentally gutted of all the good things they proclaimed so loudly, so forcefully, so proudly in 1994.

Here's another one, Mr. Speaker:

"Local government receives a formula-based municipal general grant and statutory consultation with the minister responsible for the new act. The provincial government gets a local government grant program that is affordable and which comes within the framework of sound fiscal management in a way that does away with the surplus fund, it sets local government grants on a sustainable foundation well into the future, it removes the element of whimsy and lobbying, and introduces elements of partnership, proper negotiation and consultation around the very special relationship this province has with the municipalities it serves."

Isn't that a special quote?

I think there might be one or two things in that quote that we might want to comment on specifically -- for example, the notion that it sets local government grants on a sustainable foundation well into the future. Well, it's kind of reminiscent in some ways, I think, of some of the comments surrounding Forest Renewal B.C. -- that no greedy minister will ever touch this fund. It seems in this case, again, that "well into the future" is something less than three years.

One of the expressions that surrounds the promises of this NDP government is that a block of cheese has a longer shelf life than an NDP promise.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I don't want in any way to offend the dairy industry here by making this perhaps unfortunate comparison between a block of cheese and the NDP government. But I think the point is a good one: the shelf life of promises of this government -- which are always claimed to be well into the future -- are really very, very limited. I probably won't have an opportunity today to talk about some other examples of time-limited warranties on NDP promises, but needless to say, the record there has been regrettable -- to put it in its most diplomatic expression.

Just in terms of closing off on comments made during the 1994 debates, Mr. Speaker, there is one very, very special quote which I would really like to mention to you. And that's a quote from the man who was then the Finance minister in British Columbia and who is today our Premier. In response to a question from my friend and colleague, the member for Delta South, the Premier responded by saying that the Local Government Grants Act would provide municipalities with "a guaranteed increase." Well, again, how long did the guarantee last? I guess it might have lasted two years, I'm not sure.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Two years? Relative to a lot of NDP promises, maybe that's not bad. Two years is a pretty good shelf life for an NDP promise.

But it's most unfortunate, I think, that we didn't get that guaranteed increase. We didn't get the stability, certainty and predictability that we had very much hoped for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to explain a few of my reservations about the Local Government Grants Act. I know our Finance critic has much more to say about this act.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today, hon. Speaker, and speak to the Budget Measures Implementation Act. When it comes to budget measures implementation by the NDP government, I'm always assured that I have the ability to vote against the bill, because they haven't implemented one yet. In the six years I've been in this place, I've seen a lot of bills come and go, and the one thing that I always alert myself for is when an omnibus bill comes through this House from the NDP government, because I know that if I look hard enough, I'll find the bad news somewhere. And the bad news in this case is one of the most offensive downloadings on municipal governments that's ever occurred in the history of British Columbia -- $113 million downloaded on the municipalities, cities and towns of this province.

I have the consolation of knowing that never again will the Minister of Finance be able to go into a city or a town in this province and complain about federal off-loading. Never again will they be able to do it, and the reason for it is because, as the official opposition critic has stated, in one year this government has downloaded on municipalities a greater volume of off-loading than they've seen in three years from the federal government. In one year they've decided that the municipalities in this province are going to take a hit, and it's almost worse than the federal off-loading which this government has complained about for years.

Now, let's cast our minds back to last fall and the way in which the government handled this announcement. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the current Minister of Employment and Investment, didn't want to release the bad news, because there was a municipal election on. He didn't want to influence the results of a municipal election. He didn't want to impact the NDP candidates who were running at the municipal level. Now, can you imagine if the Finance minister of Canada had told this Minister of Finance: "I'm not going to tell you what your federal transfer payment reductions are going to be, because there's an election coming on"? Can you imagine if that had occurred? Can you imagine the caterwauling, the whining, the press conferences that would have gone on in this province if that had been the kind of approach the federal government had taken to this provincial government?

The province has known about its transfer payment reductions. They were a part of a schedule that was discussed with the provinces across the country, and when it came time for this government to treat municipalities fairly and equitably, what did they choose to do? They chose to delay the announcement so as not to impact the municipal elections last fall -- and gave them a one-month notice. You know, credibility is hard won in this province, and I believe the government has shed most of it with the manner in which it has dealt with municipalities, towns and cities in British Columbia.

What is the impact of this $113 million off-load going to be? The Minister of Finance stood in this assembly and promised no new taxes in the province of British Columbia. And the Union of B.C. Municipalities sent out a survey to its member municipalities, and they found out that 66 percent of its members are contemplating a property tax increase as a result of this government's downloading -- 66 percent. "We're on your side," the government says to the middle-class families in this province. "We're not going to raise your taxes in the current budget." Well, how many homeowners are there out there? How many small business owners in the province are going to be facing an increase in taxes as a result of this cynical measure by the provincial government? It's 66 percent, according to a survey of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

[ Page 2569 ]

I hope this Minister of Finance and the government have an opportunity in the next fiscal year to go into the towns and cities in this province where there has been a sizeable tax increase and tell them there are no new taxes in the current provincial budget. It's a sham. That's what it is. There have been words of condolences offered up during the course of this debate to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who by all measures is a decent minister. He has inherited the mantle of deception, quite frankly. He has to go out and sell this method of consultation to municipalities throughout British Columbia, and I wish him luck. He's going to need it. He's going to need it because there is no confidence anymore with respect to this provincial government.

I know the minister was sort of scoffing at a survey which was done of member municipalities about whether they believed the promises of the government when the former Minister of Municipal Affairs said that there would be ample consultation with the municipalities and cities and towns before any off-loading or any reduction in grants was contemplated. They asked the municipal mayors and councillors whether they believed the promise that was made. Almost 100 percent of the mayors and the councillors in British Columbia believed that the government had broken its promise, which I suppose is not quite as bad as the 75 percent of British Columbians who believe the government didn't tell the truth about its budget. It's worse than that, but you can always draw some consolation from the fact that the numbers that come out of the Union of B.C. Municipalities aren't quite as bad as the numbers of believability in the provincial budget. Nevertheless, it indicates how disillusioned local municipalities are with this provincial government -- the lack of consultation.

As I said earlier, the way it was done is what I think has offended so many municipal mayors and councillors in British Columbia -- the cynical way in which the grants were announced, holding them off during an election period. It's the type of thing that. . . . Well, I agree with the official opposition critic that it will take years for the government to repair the damage with municipalities and cities and towns in this province. They may never recover -- with justification -- because those local governments have to eat these costs and find ways of passing them on to their local taxpayers.

Municipalities throughout the province have been holding meetings with their ratepayers to look at options that are available to them. Contrast what municipalities have done to deal with this off-loading, compared to what this government has done to deal with its budget problems.

In Vancouver there were meetings held throughout the city to discuss the implications of these grant reductions and what measure of reductions of service, tax increases, would be needed in order to deal with it. Virtually every municipality in the province has been forced to hold those kinds of meetings to discuss the effect of this. I think local taxpayers are well versed in where the problems lie. They know why they're being asked to pay more for pools or pay more for property taxes or pay more for user fees. They understand where it came from, because the mayors and the councillors in their communities are telling their taxpayers that the government of British Columbia didn't treat them honestly. That's what they're saying. That's what they're telling their local taxpayers. I've got news for the members opposite: they've got a lot more credibility right now in the province than this government has, and that's what they're out there saying.

Let's talk about this particular section of the bill which off-loads onto municipalities. Believe it or not, the original announcement by the minister was not legal in British Columbia -- not even legal. But we have a government that can do anything, according to the Minister of Forests. So that's no problem.

[11:00]

It doesn't matter that we downloaded on municipalities illegally. We know that when the session starts we can bring in a bill and make it legal. I mean, at the very least, does it not demonstrate a slippage of morality, hon. Speaker, that you don't necessarily have to draft policy based on the laws of the land? You can just come into this assembly six months from now and make it legal. Well, it's no wonder that people are cynical about what happens in this place. It's no wonder that municipalities, when they're confronted with the fact that they have what they assume to be a legal contract -- a legal understanding, based on law and statute -- with the province of British Columbia, and they find the government saying: "Well, you know, it isn't legal. We know that. We're going to have to change the legislation, but we'll come in and do that. . . ." If they can do that, they can do anything.

I think the official opposition critic, the member for Shuswap, has said it well. What we've seen here is an abandonment of the kind of trust and understanding that has existed between local governments and the provincial government for decades. That's what this bill is all about: an abandonment of that understanding and trust.

I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs well. He's got a damage control exercise the like of which I don't think the province has ever seen. They don't believe him. To start off his mandate. . . . The municipalities and the administrators and the mayors don't believe him. They don't believe anything the government says.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

With respect to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, I would expect that anybody on the opposite side of the House who is steadfastly opposed to federal downloading -- and we've heard it for the last three years -- if they have any conscience, if they have any depth of understanding, will stand up and vote against this section of the bill. It's worse -- far worse -- than what the federal government offered the province of British Columbia -- less consultation, imposed over one year instead of three, without any formula or consultation.

All the member municipalities ever asked for from this government was the same deal that this government got from the federal government. "Tell us the schedule. Tell us over how many years they're going to phase it in." All the UBCM wanted was a phase-in over three years: "Cut it this year, cut it next year, cut it the year after that; and we'll find a way to deal with it." That's what they told the government: "We'll find a way to deal with it." You contrast that with the kind of whining that's gone on from this government, hon. Speaker, and it defies description, really.

So I obviously will be voting against the budget measures implementation bill. We'll be doing our bit on this side of the House to defend municipalities. We're going to point out, I'm sure, during the course of second reading debate, that until this bill is passed in the House, the government's efforts to download on municipalities are illegal -- illegal -- in British Columbia.

We will have no hesitation after this bill is debated -- and I have no illusions that the members on the opposite side will 

[ Page 2570 ]

stand up and support it -- to go out and tell municipalities and towns we deeply regret that the trust and understanding that has existed between that level of government and the province has been irreparably severed and damaged. I doubt that it will ever be the same.

I urge members opposite to do the right thing. When this clause comes down, vote against it to make a statement on behalf of their communities and municipalities throughout British Columbia. I hope that justice and sanity with respect to this section will prevail on the other side of the House.

I. Waddell: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to rise and take part in this debate, but I must say I couldn't resist after hearing the last member speak. While he was speaking, I heard the new Minister of Municipal Affairs -- my colleague here on my left -- say that it's his on-to-Ottawa speech. I don't know where he's on to now, but he's running, I gather, federally. There's a little plug for him. He's running federally, and that's why I found his speech absolutely extraordinary.

I put it to the hon. member who last spoke, the member for Surrey-White Rock: does he really want us in B.C. to accept the deal, as he said? Do we really want the same deal that the provincial government got from the federal government? Do the municipalities really want that same sort of deal. . . ?

Interjections.

I. Waddell: I ask the hon. members, instead of heckling me, to listen a little bit about that deal and about that schedule, to ponder whether they really want that for the municipalities, and to ponder what British Columbia really got from Ottawa. That member there, the member who last spoke, wants to go to Ottawa. He wants to go and represent British Columbia in Ottawa. He should start talking about the kind of deal that the Ottawa Liberals have given to British Columbia and look at it. We lost $400 million last year. Think about it.

Interjection.

I. Waddell: I just ask the hon. member to listen to me. I don't speak often in the House. Just give me a chance here.

We lost $400 million from Ottawa last year. This is the fastest-growing province in the country. This part of the country receives 8 percent of major federal transfers, and we are providing 13 percent of the services in the country. Look at the gap. People are flowing into British Columbia from other parts of Canada. Immigrants are coming into British Columbia.

We have to provide schools. You have said to us -- you get up day after day: "Where's the money for this school? Where's the money for that school?" We have to provide hospitals. You ask: "Why the cutback in this hospital? Why the cutback in that hospital?" I know that in my own riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, Walter Moberly Elementary School, for example, has got portables. We're trying to get rid of those portables. We've got other schools in Vancouver and in other parts of the province that need to be rebuilt. We need more schools. We're building schools as fast as we can.

But when you have $400 million cut back last year. . . . Just look at that. Then we had $200 million cut back this year from Ottawa. That's a total of $600 million. I can give you the exact figure from Statistics Canada, and I ask the members opposite to challenge it if they will. The figure is $683.5 million -- table H-5 in Statistics Canada. Now we're looking at $683.5 million in cutbacks there. This is extraordinary to cope with.

It gets worse, and I'll tell the hon. members why. They have to listen to this for a moment. The federal government has reduced its operating budget -- the federal Finance minister's budget. And they get applause for that from, mainly, the conservative media and other people. They've cut social services pretty drastically in the country. And they've thrown the cutbacks onto the provinces.

Interjections.

I. Waddell: I just ask the hon. members to listen to these figures. Here are the facts. Of that cutback in the Martin budget, 75 percent -- the cast-off, if you like, to the provinces, the cutback in transfer payments to the provinces. . . . As I said, in B.C. it was $400 million last year and $200 million this year, for a total of $600 million. That represents 75 percent of the federal cutbacks.

Interjection.

I. Waddell: Now, listen. I ask the hon. member from the Okanagan to listen to this. Seventy-five percent of their savings was done on the backs of the provinces and especially on the back of British Columbia. That's what the hon. member, if he goes to Ottawa, should be telling Mr. Martin and the other people: don't do it all on the backs of British Columbia and on the backs of the provinces.

Now, if you look at what we're doing. . . . The members opposite are up today complaining about our cutbacks to the municipalities. I've been there; I've done that; I understand what they're doing. That's their job. But they should look at the facts as well.

We had to make cutbacks in government that amounted to $750 million, and we did it. It wasn't easy to do. Some of the results are coming back now, and it's tough. Court reporters come in here and say: "We're losing jobs." Courthouses are cut back. Schools need to be built faster. We've got some cutbacks here and there, and people are coming. These are real cutbacks.

But -- and I ask the members to recognize this -- this off-loading to the municipalities represents 15 percent of our cutbacks. So of our cutbacks, 15 percent was off-loaded to the municipalities. Of the federal cutbacks, 75 percent was off-loaded to the provinces.

That member has the sheer hypocrisy and gall to stand up, blame us, give us a tough time for our cutbacks to municipalities, let the federal government off free and then to turn around and leave this House in a couple of weeks and run for the federal government. Surely that's a new level of hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal opposition.

It goes farther. The Liberals, these people across the way from us who are standing up today and giving the Minister of Finance a tough time on cutbacks to municipalities and other matters. . .

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Wait. Get this; listen to this.

. . .proposed cutting $3 billion. Can you imagine what $3 billion in cutbacks would have done -- what that would have 

[ Page 2571 ]

done to the municipalities? Yet they have the sheer hypocrisy to stand up and criticize us.

The hon. Minister of Finance brought down a budget that's workable, that's a conservative, prudent budget and that is standing up in the public. We should be very pleased about that. That's what makes it difficult for the opposition. It was a good budget; it's standing up, and it's working. That's what makes it so hard for the opposition.

These people are standing up and giving us a tough time for off-loading to the municipalities, in the face of having to deal with a $600 million off-loading from the federal government. We had to deal with 75 percent of their off-loading -- that is, the provinces generally and British Columbia in particular. I might add that British Columbia even got it worse, because we also lost an additional $150 million last year and another $100 million this year because the federal government didn't take into account the population growth. They made the figures even worse, and they got around that. If you do your research there in the opposition, you should be standing up and blasting the federal Liberal government for their unreasonable, unfair and totally unfounded cutbacks to British Columbia.

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Who is standing up for British Columbia? Certainly not the opposition over there.

An Hon. Member: Research.

I. Waddell: Research. The hon. member says research. I think he'd better look for some better research on your side. I challenge you to get up after I speak -- any member there -- and challenge my. . . . I see the Finance critic. Good, let him get up. Let's deal with those figures. The figures I want the Finance critic to deal with are the $400 million cutback last year, the $200 million cutback this year by the federal government, the percentage of the cutbacks. . . .

[11:15]

S. Hawkins: What about the notice period?

I. Waddell: One thing at a time. I'm dealing with the Finance critic over there, and I'm challenging him to get up and defend British Columbia from these kinds of unfair and unreal federal cutbacks.

Now, the hon. member is asking for notice period and so on. We had to deal with the cutbacks. The municipalities are also going to have to deal with cutbacks. Look, there's a lot of fat out there in the municipalities, too. They're going to have to make some of those cutbacks.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order. It is very difficult to hear, if I may, either side. I suggest we let the speaker who has the floor express his views.

I. Waddell: Madam Speaker, when the government froze capital spending and initiated a review of priorities to reflect the concern that we've got in British Columbia about the debt. . . . And there was a concern about that.

I already told the House in a previous speech that when I was campaigning in Vancouver-Fraserview, I got to one home, and there was a husband and wife there. The husband said to me: "Ian, the issue is, you know, that you've got to watch the spending and the debt." I said: "Yes." And I said to his wife: "What do you think are the big issues in the election?" She said: "Well, you know, I've got a teenage son going to college. We need to build more colleges and to have more post-secondary education." And I said, "Well, you two should talk to each other a little bit," because there it was in a nutshell: dealing with the debt, yet dealing with making expansions in education and health care and things like this.

But we had to deal with that, and we had to deal with it in a rational way. And we did. The Minister of Finance, to his credit, brought in a really tough budget and made some very tough cutbacks.

And what did the Liberals do? Well, one after the other, I've seen in this House, Liberal MLAs have got up and used the budget debate to demand increased spending in their own ridings. I could go through and pick them off. I see the hon. member over there; he wanted more facilities in Clearwater. I see someone from Chilliwack who wanted a courthouse. Somebody wanted a technical university in the Fraser Valley, a courthouse in Chilliwack, a University College of the Fraser Valley expansion, a multilevel-care facility in Clearwater. The member for Cariboo North said funding has got to be increased to keep up with services. Another member wanted advanced life support systems in the hospitals in his riding, capital spending in his schools.

I agree with them. I want that, too. But don't be hypocritical; don't get up and tell us that we're wrong to put a cutback on municipal funding.

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Oh, all right. Is the big argument that we didn't give them proper notice? Is that the gist of the argument? Well, are you for the cutbacks or not?

Interjections.

I. Waddell: You know, Madam Speaker, I just can't get the position of the Liberal opposition. You never know what their position is; they seem to be on both sides. They're like mugwumps. You know what a mugwump is? A mugwump sits on a fence, with their mug on one side and their wump on the other, and they can't make a decision. So are they for the cutbacks or not?

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Let me just summarize my position. What I have said is that we're looking at cutbacks of $400 million and then $200 million that come from the federal government -- then additional moneys, because of the way they've calculated. We've then had to deal with this. We've had to off-load some of it to the municipalities. But we've only off-loaded 15 percent of our cutbacks versus 75 percent of the federal cutbacks that they off-loaded to the provinces. It's a difficult situation.

What I would like to see is the Liberal opposition get up and offer some positive alternatives. They said in their election 

[ Page 2572 ]

platform that they would cut $3 billion. We thought that $3 billion was too much. The Finance minister thought that would in fact destroy the B.C. economy, devastate it, and he's tried to get some sort of balance. I think he's achieved that balance. I think that in spite of these federal cutbacks, the opposition should get up and applaud the balance that he's achieved.

I would like this opposition to get up and join with us, as British Columbians, and say to the federal Liberal government: "You can't get away with treating B.C. as unfairly as this." We need your voices. It can't be just Premier Clark and the minister that get up and make these positions. We need your help. We don't need this carping and this cavilling and hiding behind the technical notion of not enough notice and so on. No, we need your help. We need you to speak out for us. We need voices from British Columbia saying these federal cutbacks are too much. That's why we're passing this sort of bill, and that's why we have to deal with the municipalities this way.

F. Gingell: Well, it was an interesting discussion we had from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview seems to think, first of all, that this side of the House supports federal cutbacks. We don't, and we never have. Madam Speaker, for them to suggest that is typical NDP nonsense.

This member stood up and said we should applaud this Minister of Finance for bringing in this budget -- this budget that hasn't happened yet. It's only a forecast; it's only a plan. Let's wait and see.

Let's look at the history of what this government has done in the past. What this government did was to table statements in this Legislature on April 30, 1996, which were false, which were clearly false and which they knew were false, because they were contrary to the policy of Treasury Board on accounting practices.

Hon. A. Petter: Absolutely wrong!

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I wish we had the opportunity that they have in the British House, where I could sit down and allow the minister to respond for a few moments -- because it isn't wrong. Read Public Accounts. Are you telling me that what Public Accounts states in note 1, as to the accounting policy of this province in recording corporation income taxes, is incorrectly stated -- in your statements? They are recorded on a cash basis. On April 30, 1996 -- 30 days after the end of the fiscal year -- you knew how much money had been taken in.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: And they are remitted to you every eight days, and the only amount that you record is the amount that you receive.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: You get them every eight days, and the eight days were over.

We will have a good discussion later when I ask the minister the question in estimates: "Exactly how much money did the provincial government receive after April 30, 1996, that is included in the consolidated revenue fund corporation income taxes?" That will be a very interesting response.

Hon. A. Petter: I look forward to it.

F. Gingell: Good.

So let's continue with this. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview talks about the cutbacks from the federal government. We sympathize; we agree; we understand. This year's cutback amounted to 10 percent of the federal government transfers. So it amounted to $170 million of $1.8 billion.

Hon. A. Petter: On top of the $400 million last year.

F. Gingell: Yes.

And what were your cuts to the municipalities, when you stopped with all the phony numbers that were put into the original press releases that were put out? They included B.C. Transit. They included numerous responsibilities of this provincial government relative to ambulance services. That's not a responsibility of municipal government; that's a responsibility of the provincial government. You included their numbers in the calculation to make it as good as you could. In fact, I believe that the fair comparison is that $332 million of transfers to municipalities were reduced to $237 million, a decrease of 29 percent. Or is that true?

You will remember that originally there was an intention to transfer the maintenance of some highways from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to local municipalities.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. If the minister would speak up a bit I could hear her, but I can't hear.

An Hon. Member: She said there's no cuts in small communities.

F. Gingell: Well, well, well! What's that got to do with the price of bread? For goodness' sake! Very simple, a typical shell game. This government protects three people, attacks 97, and says: "We haven't done anything to these three people."

I've been waiting for the Minister of Transportation and Highways to stand up in this House and say: "Please recognize that the cuts are a little bit more than we originally said. We had originally planned on dumping the maintenance of some provincial highways onto local government. But we hadn't thought about it. We're terribly incompetent, and I'm really sorry. We hadn't thought about the contracts that were in place with the maintenance companies around the province, to whom the ministry has contracted out maintenance of the highway system. So we have to take it back. But what we'll do in the meantime is deduct the cost from the transfers that we have presently promised you."

I don't know what that amount is. The original amount of the transfers, which were reduced because of these. . . . They were going to pay $8 million. Now, in Delta, they have taken a further $341,000 from our municipal grant to deal with the issue of the highways they tried to give us. They discovered that, through their incompetence, they had not realized it wasn't practical.

I'd be most interested if the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- who a moment ago was paying great and rapt attention, talking about three communities that haven't had a reduction -- would tell this House, when she speaks to this bill, exactly how much additional reduction in transfer payments has taken place, over and above the amounts in 

[ Page 2573 ]

their press release, to compensate for their inability to push the highways under one of the big shells in their major shell game and push that over to local government, when they discovered that there was a hole in the shell and they couldn't do it.

What else is there in this shell game? Well, in this bill there is some $2.6 million of the cost of running the various appeal processes of the B.C. Assessment Authority, which was previously paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It is now going to be paid by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Of course, the B.C. Assessment Authority doesn't have any money of their own; the only place they get it from is from property owners. So property owners are going to pay this additional $2.6 million.

When the Minister of Finance stood up and said, "We are going to have a year-over-year reduction in expenditures this year," he didn't say: "Well, of course, there is $2.6 million that we used to pay that will now be paid by the B.C. Assessment Authority and taxed to local taxpayers." He didn't say that. But he's proud of his budget, which really has kept many things hidden under shells and under the carpet.

[11:30]

Let's just think what this exercise of moving the payment of these costs has done. It surprises me, because the minister has taught law and understands, I hope, the issues of conflicts of interest and division of powers -- constitutional issues. But now we have an Assessment Authority that is going to pay the costs of the assessment appeal boards and the courts of revision, who are parties to the actions that are brought in front of those bodies -- actions or appeals. Now, that may or may not be a big deal, but it seems to me sufficient reason to ensure that, at least on the face of it, there is a Chinese curtain that separates the appeal board -- the people who serve in that function -- from the Assessment Authority whose judgment they are required to judge. So if it doesn't make sense for the cost to be pushed over to the Assessment Authority, why is it being done?

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I fail to see any logical reason for this to be done, except to take $2.6 million in addition to all the other items that I previously listed in my budget response: items that have gone to FRBC, items that have gone to the Transportation Financing Authority, items that are going to finish up on property owners' tax bills, items that were previously funded through the Ministry of Education that are now going to be borrowed and included in the School Districts Capital Financing Authority debt -- a whole series of issues.

P. Reitsma: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Reitsma: From my riding -- and abutting your riding, Mr. Speaker -- we have behind me here 27 grade 5 students and seven or eight teachers and adults from Uplands elementary school in Nanaimo. They are visiting us, and look forward to seeing you in your capacity of Speaker as well. Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

The Speaker: Thanks to the member for Delta South for allowing the interruption.

F. Gingell: The Minister of Transportation and Highways has talked about two or three small municipalities for whom there has been no decrease and, in fact, may have been an increase. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: How can the Minister of Transportation and Highways make such a ridiculous statement: "We don't care about them"? What kind of idea is that? Do you think the fact that these particular. . .? The minister thinks the fact that some small municipalities have not suffered cuts -- who would have been in a disastrous position had you done so -- excuses the fact that you've made these cuts to these other municipalities. The grants to the municipality of Delta have been cut by 58 percent.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says: "Don't play with figures." It was this government that played with figures. They were the ones who included in their calculations: B.C. Transit capital; B.C. Transit operating; the Fraser basin initiative from Environment, Lands and Parks, a very important project which the minister -- sorry, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview; not the minister yet, but there you go -- has been most involved with. They included that. They included grants in lieu of taxes from the universities. They included ambulance costs. They included the arterial roads, which were their responsibility to start with. The whole thing was put up as a sham.

The truth of the matter is that originally we believed that Delta had their government grant reduced by a fraction over 50 percent. That actually came from the document that was sent to the municipality by the minister, Dan Miller. That fails to say that there's an additional $341,000 that has subsequently been taken away by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, so that now the reduction is equivalent to 58 percent.

The independent policing grant has been reduced. Policing costs have to be looked at. As I have mentioned before, this government has -- quite rightly, and supported by all sides of the House -- required certain organizations who employ people that have personal contact with certain citizens to go through a criminal-records check. Everyone supports that. But the government has put this responsibility on these organizations as an unfunded mandate. They've required these checks to be done, they didn't give the police forces any additional funds to pay the costs of providing these criminal-record checks, and now they've gone the other way and reduced the grants to municipalities -- at least to Delta and other municipalities that have independent police forces.

Before I move on, I would like to read into the record some statements relative to the 1994 municipal grants act. The reason that I would particularly like to do this is that I had a discussion with the then Minister of Finance with respect to issues relating to the old Revenue Sharing Act. I remember being in Prince George at a UBCM meeting and hearing municipalities complain that the revenue-sharing fund, which you will remember had put into it -- not in cash but notationally -- certain portions of revenues from sales tax, royalties, natural resource taxes and, I believe, something from income taxes. . . . This was a bill that had been brought in by the Social Credit administration. It had been building up and building up, because there was commitment to notationally record these credits but there was no commitment to pay them out.

[ Page 2574 ]

So I said to the Minister of Finance: "It isn't fair to the municipalities to not know from year to year exactly where they stand, to wait for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make the determination. You'd be better to repeal that act and give them certainty." So in 1994 that's what they did. The bill was brought in by the hon. Minister of Finance, the member for. . .Elizabeth Cull -- I can mention her name now, I believe, seeing that she's not a member. Her words were, "It also commits the government to annual consultation with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities" -- which didn't happen -- and it was to give them certainty.

Then I see in Hansard the following:

"I can appreciate that municipal governments would rather exchange promises of great wealth and riches, which they never get, for something that is a little more clearly defined and, I hope, committed to. Commitments by provincial governments to support other levels of government are, in the normal course of events, no better than one year's budget."

Those were my words. I was pleased at the time that there would be an exchange of a loose promise for a specific commitment so that municipal governments could plan and there would be consultation.

This government promised to do that, and because of that, we supported them. They not only let municipalities and citizens of this province down, but they let us down, too. It makes you wonder. When you support this government, it's a very short exercise until they turn around and betray you.

That is all I'm going to say on the issue of municipal grants reductions. I truly believe that every member of this government should be ashamed. It surprises me that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview believes that cuts by the federal government all have to be downloaded onto municipal government, that they have been good, that they have been kind by not passing the whole amount through. What this country needs -- and I know the Minister of Finance always nods when I say this -- is. . . . The time has come for all levels of government to sit down and reform the system of revenue-sharing within this country. This business of transfers from one level of government to another level of government, I believe, is wasteful. They are inefficient; they are ineffective. Various levels of government should be given the rights to revenue sources to enable them to look after their own responsibilities. Then we can deal with equalization issues separately, in a clear manner, so that we understand exactly what equalization costs taxpayers and how it benefits citizens throughout the country.

The next item I would like to refer to in Bill 2 is the provisions that deal with the elimination of the exemption from property tax on pollution abatement equipment. I had an opportunity to speak briefly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about this prior to this debate and suggested to him that it needed to be looked at. There were some problems with the grant-filing that were perhaps unintended, and maybe there were better solutions to the issue. I was hoping that the sections were going to be withdrawn for further review. But we are early in this session, and there will be lots of time for it to be brought back.

But I'd like to deal with some issues relative to this matter. My understanding is that these provisions were orig- inally enacted to encourage -- to be a carrot for -- major industrial facilities to modernize their plants in the area of pollution abatement. Through a particular case that was heard in 1995, which was the Assessor of Area No. 08, North Shore-Squamish Valley, v. International Paper Industries Ltd. . . . International Paper Industries Ltd. are in the blue box business -- picking up recyclable materials and wastes in North Vancouver, as I understand, and keeping them out of the landfill; and they are performing that service on a contract from the municipality. I understand that it was a surprise to the government when they won their case and their property was. . . . They successfully won an exemption under the pollution abatement section of the Assessment Act.

[11:45]

The circumstance now is that this government has brought in a situation where everybody who had the exemption in 1996 will keep it, those who didn't have the exemption in 1996 will never get it, and any new properties built and constructed subsequent to 1996 that might have qualified for this exemption will never be eligible for this abatement. It has created an enormous inequity. Only the people who were parties to that appeal, or perhaps clients of the particular lawyer that brought it about, got in and got their exemptions in 1996. Many businesses who do exactly the same thing were originally exempted by the assessor in their 1997 assessments, and then the assessor appealed his own assessment to the appeal board when it was decided that this legislation was going to go through.

So we have a set of circumstances where a certain number of businesses will forever have a competitive advantage over the people they compete with. To me that doesn't seem right; that doesn't seem fair. I would suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that it is perhaps appropriate to pull this section and take a second look.

I'd also suggest that there's the issue that. . . . As this government expands the returnability of drink containers and wishes to encourage the recycling of these materials, keeping them out of landfills, etc., this may be a retrograde step in accomplishing that. I believe you also have municipalities and regional districts in the waste management business that are in a similar process and that will compete with commercial businesses. They don't pay property taxes, because they are municipal organizations. So there are competitive issues there.

As usual, I don't have answers, but I think I do have a good grip on the problems. The answers are usually more difficult. Perhaps this is something that the minister could bring back and give some second thought to.

One other issue in Bill 2 is that under the sections that deal with the reassessment of improperly paid refunds of certain taxes, we note that the legislation is not permissive but compulsory. It just seems to me that that may cause the Ministry of Finance, in normal operation, to have the ability to decide to proceed on something or not to proceed. There may have been refunds which were not, as it were, caused as a result of an application by the collector but were the result of audit work done by the Ministry of Finance's consumer taxation division, who decided that the taxes had been overpaid and subsequently changed their mind. There may well be some circumstances where those sections should be permissive rather than compulsory.

I'd also like to briefly speak to the issue of the propane tax. I wasn't going to speak to the issue of the tobacco tax -- and that's a new tax they are bringing in. I didn't think that was an appropriate subject to speak about, but the propane issue is. There has been an intention by this government and previous administrations -- this isn't something new -- to exempt propane as a vehicle fuel purely and simply for the purpose of abatement of pollution.

[ Page 2575 ]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: With a sunset provision, truly.

Now, allowing the sun to set. . . . I appreciate that the minister is really quite impressive: he has the ability to stop the sun from setting. The King Canute of the Legislature!

I appreciate that there is the issue of. . . . This isn't a new tax; it's the stopping of an exemption. I'm not discussing this issue on the basis of this promise they made about no new taxes -- and then they carefully avoid the issue of all the user fees, which. . . . When they were in opposition, they continually attacked the Social Credit government for not calling them taxes.

But the issue, I think, is that there was an intention here to encourage the use of a less polluting fuel. This exemption has gone on and on, and it's been renewed time after time. Many organizations, many individuals and many municipalities have converted their vehicles to propane use to be good citizens, to reduce the level of emissions from automobiles. And all of a sudden, before they've had the opportunity to recoup the very substantial costs of investing in the conversion, they have this taken away from them.

There are two additional exemptions which continue. M-85 is still exempt. My understanding is that there are approximately 24 cars in the whole of British Columbia that use M-85. We also have the continuation of the E-85 exemption -- I was going to say the Mohawk exemption, but I won't. There's only one automobile in the whole of the province that comes under that exemption. All of the other provinces that have recognized the importance of using ethanol, both as a renewable fuel and to reduce emission levels, have made exemptions for a 90-10 mix.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yeah. And that is why it is 90-10; 90-10 also works well because of other issues dealing with how an internal combustion engine works and the way in which it is manufactured and the materials that are used in its manufacture. It seems to me that the member for Chilliwack in the previous Legislature used to deal with this issue every year. I would suggest to them that if they truly want to encourage the reduction of emissions, there are some other alternatives which will show some very positive results.

Seeing that the time is 11:55, drawing close to the noon hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

F. Gingell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 10:15 a.m.

The Chair: Before we get started, this is the first in what will be a series of estimates. I would just like to let members know that we do have adherence to the decorum and procedures of the House and the standing orders of the House.

Committee of Supply is a Committee of the Whole House, and under standing order 61, two principles are applied. Firstly, the standing orders of the House apply, except for limits on the number of times a member may speak. Secondly, the rule of relevancy requires that speeches be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. In keeping with the practices of this House, general discussion of a ministry's policies and administration will be permitted under the office vote of the minister. Accordingly, debate under subsidiary votes will have to be strictly relevant to the vote under consideration.

Under standing order 43, the Chair may intervene where it perceives that a member is persisting in tedious repetition. In all other respects, the normal rules of debate will apply. In addition to that, there is a guide, which I know members are aware of. We had it last session, and I have asked you to review it again. It is useful to both the members and the officials, and also to the observers in the gallery.

With that, I would like to begin the estimates. I recognize the Attorney General.

On vote 16: minister's office, $429,000.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have some staff with me that I will introduce before I begin my remarks. I have the deputy minister and Deputy Attorney General, Maureen Maloney; the ADM of management services, Rick McCandless; the director of resource planning and analysis, Barb Kaiway; and the ADM of court services, Malcolm McAvity.

This is probably one of the few times I'll ever read my speech, and I will read it thoroughly today, word for word.

We are now engaged, as never before, on a journey of justice reform. I have spoken with British Columbians all over our province and heard a consistent message: the justice system must reform if it is to retain public confidence. It is tremendously important to hear that message and listen to people's concerns. They told me they want safe homes, neighbourhoods and streets; a justice system that's tough on violent crime, with appropriate sanctions; a civil system that is fair and deals with issues quickly; and a reform process they can participate in. Yet people see an increasingly complex justice system that they do not have faith in, even as the cost of it is rising rapidly and more is being demanded of it.

Just a few examples of demands on the system. The latest StatsCan census shows that B.C.'s population is growing at twice the national average. The average adult correctional 

[ Page 2576 ]

facility's daily population has increased 46 percent over the last seven years. The adult community probation and bail caseload has increased 52 percent over the same period. The backlog in our courts is unacceptably high. We are spending more on policing than ever before and more on courts and corrections than ever before, yet people feel alienated from the system. Clearly, justice reform is essential. And clearly, because we can't just continue to throw more and more money at the system forever, we have to work smarter.

We have already responded to people's concerns with a wide range of improved policies and initiatives. For example, B.C. is a national leader in applications for dangerous-offender designations. We have given new resources for the DNA testing facility. We have improved criminal justice policies such as the revised Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. We have introduced innovative new programs, such as the hate-crime team and the provincial prostitution unit, recently recognized internationally at a convention in the United States. We created a new squad to reduce the number of unsolved homicides. We introduced nationally renowned criminal-record-check legislation to protect children. We brought in legislation permitting class actions. We established simpler and better rules for dividing pensions after marriage breakdown. We piloted innovative family justice centres. We created specialized training for family court counsellors and better enforcement of family maintenance orders. We created a central registry of protection orders so that police can get information immediately on the status of a court order to protect women and children.

In this spirit, our ministry is continuing on the journey of justice reform. I have a vision of a justice system for British Columbia that protects our neighbourhoods -- that treats serious crime seriously. I see a restorative justice system that gives communities a role in policies and programs, a system that looks for consensual approaches to resolving disputes, a system that ensures that offenders are held accountable for what they have done and has them make amends to their victims and communities wherever possible, a system that reduces rather than increases the likelihood of further harm.

Based on what British Columbians have told me, my priorities for continued reform are public safety and security, effective and affordable conflict resolution, crime prevention and early intervention. Underlying everything we do are certain important principles: fairness to all parties, accessibility to all members of the community, a spirit of partnership, efficiency and affordability and effectiveness. I'd like to explain in more detail how these priorities and principles fit into an organized framework of reform. The justice system in B.C. can be categorized into three main areas: criminal justice, civil and family justice, and general administration.

Let me give you some examples of reforms in criminal justice. The criminal justice process is very costly and often frustrating. Our police face tough challenges, our courts are backlogged, and our correctional facilities are overburdened. Simply throwing in more resources hasn't done, and can't do, the job. We have to work smarter in criminal justice, as we do everywhere in the system. We've started to make changes at the front end of the system. With careful reform there, we can better protect public safety and save resources. The first priority always has to be protecting the public -- especially from violent, high-risk offenders. My resolve will never waver in using the full weight of the traditional system to deal with those kinds of crimes. Guiding me in this priority, and in all criminal justice reforms, is a much greater role for victims of crime. Victims' voices must be heard throughout the criminal justice process. They can never be forgotten again.

Our government has shown its commitment to this principle in our Victims of Crime Act, legislation that is a model envied by the rest of the country. Apart from the high-risk, violent types of offences, it is with other kinds of offences that we can make even more significant changes, based on the principle of community involvement, to give all British Columbians a sense of ownership of their justice system. After all, the system does not belong to the lawyers, the judges or the politicians; it belongs to the people of this province.

We are increasing the use of community-based alternatives for low-risk offenders, while maintaining public safety and accountability. Diversion is one alternative. Low-risk offenders can be diverted from the traditional, expensive court system into the community, subject always to these offenders being returned for prosecution if they fail to comply with community-based alternatives. Diversion is faster. It allows communities to become more involved in justice issues. It tailors consequences for individual offenders that have real meaning for them, for their victim -- with the victim's permission -- and for the communities.

I'll give you an example of a recent diversion case. This case was handled by a diversion program in a small community. The program is a partnership among the community, Crown counsel, police and the municipal government. The case involved a young man who broke into a shoe store. The accused was a first-time, low-risk offender.

The first step in the process was ascertaining that the offence was not violent. Serious violent offences are not accepted for diversion. Cases involving violence against women are not accepted for diversion, nor is drinking and driving.

Next, the case had to meet the Crown's charge approval standard -- that is, according to police and Crown counsel, the offender could have been prosecuted in the traditional expensive court system. But instead of going that route, the parents, the victim -- the shoe store owner -- and police devised a plan of accountability and restitution.

The diversion committee decided the offender would have to work stocking shelves every Saturday for eight months in the shoe store he broke into. He went to work, and he did such a good job that at the end of the eight months he was hired by the owner as a salesperson. The system worked for all the parties: victim, offender and the community. It's been three years, and the young person has not reoffended. The community took ownership of the problem, found a solution and is a safer place because of it. Compare that to our traditional system that costs $102 a minute to go to court and $160 a day to incarcerate an adult -- and this does not include all the social and economic costs of the process to the community.

As you can see, diversion can be an example of the principle of restorative justice -- an attempt to restore what is lost when a criminal action is committed. We now want to take the lessons we have learned from youth diversion and apply them more broadly to other non-violent crimes, to adults, to many situations where carefully constructed community alternatives to a short jail sentence could make an enormous difference in the long-term safety of a community.

Other examples of reform in the criminal justice system include more police officers, to enhance community policing; a new police public complaints process, for more accountability and improving public confidence; risk assessment tools in the communities and institutions; for optimum use of resources; expanded use of disclosure courts; and support for 

[ Page 2577 ]

community efforts to find better solutions to local youth violence and crime issues.

I should point out that the provincial government is a partner in more than funding and organizational support. We are taking many necessary actions on the national and international stage on behalf of British Columbians. For example, I've urged the federal government to amend the law on prostitution so that our police and prosecutors can convict those who prey on children. Although an error at the federal level resulted in changes agreed upon by our respective governments not making it into the amended law, Justice Minister Rock has phoned to advise that in the event his government is re-elected, he will introduce B.C.'s changes right after the election.

Also, I have written to Canadian and American justice ministers asking for a coordinated international effort to combat fraudulent telemarketing. I was pleased to see President Clinton and Prime Minister Chr�tien recently agreeing to do just that. I have asked the federal and provincial justice ministers for a national approach to returning fugitives fleeing justice to the location of their crimes. We now have an agreement with Alberta on this. I have asked Justice Minister Rock to double the current maximum jail sentence for criminal harassment or stalking. A tougher maximum sentence will send a clear message of how seriously the federal Parliament and the justice system view this crime.

In summary, our goals for reforming the criminal justice streams are that we will employ the full weight of the traditional system to protect the public from high-risk violent offenders, we will ensure that offenders are held accountable for their actions and ensure that victims' voices are heard in the criminal process, we will improve the efficiency of the delivery of criminal justice in the province, and we will reduce the level of crime, through prevention and early intervention.

[10:30]

Turning to civil and family justice, here are some examples of reform in that area of the system. Individuals and families entering these realms can experience great frustration and daunting expense. British Columbians have told me they want a civil and family system that resolves their disputes more fairly and faster, that looks for consensual approaches wherever possible without compromising the safety of the individuals involved and that is affordable. So we are increasing the use of early intervention, mediation and arbitration.

Central to this is the ministry's new dispute resolution office. Its purpose is to expand the use of dispute resolution programs in the court system and in government. The office is an active proponent of alternative dispute resolutions and a resource to members of the bench and bar interested in developing alternate dispute resolution programs. With the assistance of mediators, arbitrators and lawyers in the community, it is also developing rosters of trained and experienced mediators and arbitrators, to ensure that the public has access to reliable services. The ministry is developing educational programs to increase public awareness of these tools.

Mediation has proven to be highly effective in resolving family law disputes. My ministry and the Ministry for Children and Families have created a program to mediate child welfare disputes, and we have worked with the Provincial Court judiciary to establish judicial settlement conferences, where mediation is used to resolve disputes that would otherwise be litigated. In non-family civil cases in Supreme Court, we are exploring ways to make mediation more readily available for litigants, including rules allowing one litigant to require another to try mediation, rules authorizing judges to require parties to attempt mediation, and awareness programs to make it easier for parties to access mediation early in the litigation process.

The other initiatives in the civil and family justice stream include parent education and family conferences in about 20 locations throughout the province. Parent education programs inform parents about alternatives to litigation for settling family disputes. The value of such programs has been recognized across North America. They show how to reduce the impact of divorce and separation on children.

Our programs were tested and evaluated during the family justice reform pilot project and were very successful from the viewpoint of parents and justice system staff. All of our provincial programs will include a component to help parents understand the new child support guidelines that will be part of the federal Divorce Act, beginning May 1.

Family justice centres like those we piloted will be located around the province. Family justice centres bring family justice services together in a coordinated way. Family court counsellors in the centres offer dispute resolution services, including family mediation, where they can best meet the needs of children and families.

Again, to summarize our goals for the reform of the civil and family justice systems, we will promote timely and just resolution of disputes in a way that is affordable for the individuals involved and for the system as a whole. We will ensure that women and children receive the financial support to which they're entitled. We will improve the efficiency in delivering civil and family justice in the province.

Finally, I'd like to say a few words about reforming administration of the justice system. Reforming administrative, physical plant and technological aspects of the system, bringing an often archaic system into the modern world, is just common sense and good management. Our goals are to realign the province's court facilities, to ensure equitable access in response to projected population growth, to improve efficiency in the administration of justice, and building partnerships and enhancing consultation. Examples include using expensive court facilities wisely; consolidating courthouses, and the move to regional centres; using new technologies -- computer information systems that link police, Crown, courts and Corrections, streamlining the handling of court documents; expanding high-quality audio recording for court recording; supporting judicial case flow initiatives; and redesigning the process for handling prisoners -- 222 Main is a model for municipal-provincial partnerships.

The reform journey is underway. It's a journey based on a vision of a justice system with a new role for community and for consensus, for accountability and for reducing harm -- a justice system that has the confidence of the people of British Columbia, to whom it belongs. For those who would like to see the reform journey in a published form, I'm happy today to hand out preliminary copies of the Ministry of Attorney General's "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System." The official version will be coming off the press shortly.

Mr. Chair, perhaps at this time I could have this tabled.

The Chair: I'm sorry, minister. The committee cannot accept documents. We can make sure the members get it, though.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I invite British Columbians to write me with comments and constructive suggestions on the reform process as it is described in the document.

[ Page 2578 ]

I would now like to give you a brief summary of the 1997-98 Ministry of Attorney General budget. The ministry's budget is up approximately $51 million, or 6 percent over the restated 1996-97 budget. Of the increase, $36.3 million is allocated to statutory programs to reflect actual levels of expenditure in recent years. There is $5.5 million in new expenditures proposed in the victims-of-crime special account. This leaves $9.2 million, or an approximate 1 percent increase, for the balance of ministry programs.

A significant reallocation of funding addresses program priorities. For example, funding for corrections programs has increased $16.5 million to recognize actual expenditures for last year and a further increase in the numbers in custody for this year. The number of provincially supported police officers will increase by at least 23, maintaining our commitment to reducing crime. An additional $1 million is for new diversion contracts, and human rights funding is up approximately $1 million.

G. Plant: I want to first of all express my thanks to the minister for outlining the approach his ministry has taken and is about to take over the course of the next year across the wide range of programs administered within his ministry. I will probably keep my responsive remarks at this point fairly brief, although I want to say one or two things.

First of all, the fact that there does now exist a document -- admittedly, self-described as a preliminary or draft document -- entitled "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System" is a great step forward, I think, because it's been my sense that changes that have been taking place and decisions that have been made over the past year within the justice system have been less driven by a coherent vision of forward-looking reform and more driven by the need for ad hoc responses to funding constraints. To see that the minister has now taken some of the announcements and decisions and tried to organize them around something that he can call reform of the justice system is, I think, a positive step forward.

One of the challenges that those of us who are not in government -- but who are trying to understand what government is doing -- face when we listen to remarks like those we've just heard from the minister, which speak of new initiatives and reforms, is to sort out, from the number of things we've heard, what we've heard that is in fact new. I think the story of the shoe store in Sparwood is becoming famous throughout British Columbia. It's a story that has particular interest, I suppose, in one respect in this context, in that it deals with a subject that is no longer within the purview of this ministry.

As much as I would be interested in talking at some length about youth corrections and diversion programs for young offenders, my understanding is that the government's intention is to pass a bill which will effectively transfer out responsibility for those sorts of programs from the Ministry of Attorney General to the Ministry for Children and Families. But I don't think the minister intended to limit the force of his use of that example to young offenders. I heard him talk about how this example of diversion in this particular story might give us some lessons for adults who are in the criminal justice system, and I think we'll probably spend some time exploring that during the course of this estimates debate.

In listening to the Attorney General's remarks, the other theme that struck me as being of some interest was the emphasis he placed on listening to British Columbians and what they are telling him about what needs to be done through the justice system. I think we'll probably spend some time during the course of the estimates debate examining the extent to which there has in fact been the kind of public consultation around reform announcements that actually bespeaks the ministry listening to British Columbians. It may be that in some respects that will be a retrospective analysis -- that is, it will be a critique of what has gone before. But I guess it is a critique on a theme, and the theme is communication, the theme is listening, the theme is consultation. Again, I want to say that with the about-to-be-released document that sets out the minister's vision of where the justice system should be going and how he wants to reform it, it may be that the minister has now at last created the context for public debate about these issues, and that would be a good step forward.

With those remarks, I want to say firstly that I've had the opportunity of a briefing with officials in the Attorney General's ministry. In fact, I have to say that over the course of the last year I've had the opportunity of a number of briefings from various branches and departments within his very large and complicated ministry. I want to impose on the Attorney General, if I might, to make sure that he expresses to his staff my appreciation for the fact that they are always willing to tell me what they're doing, and try to explain it in terms that I'm sure are supposed to persuade me that it's the right thing to do. Sometimes they succeed and other times they don't, but the fact that there is communication is a great thing, and I do appreciate the briefings I've had.

[10:45]

I want to move on to try to bridge the gap. We were here last summer, in July. That was when the House last sat and when there last was a debate on the estimated expenditures of this ministry. I asked a number of questions of the Attorney General in the course of that debate, and the Attorney General was kind enough to offer to answer those questions. I followed that up with a letter dated July 30.

I was fortunate enough to receive a reply from the minister dated November 26. I suppose I should begin by expressing my gratitude for the fact that I received a reply, but I'm not going to give too much here. It took about four months to answer the letter. I'm wondering if that four months' delay bespeaks anything about the way the minister's office works in relation to its desire to be open with people like me or if it's just that there are problems with getting correspondence out in a timely way. Perhaps I could make that the occasion of my first question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just address an issue that my learned friend, the hon. member, raised earlier with respect to diversion, and then I'll come to the issue of the correspondence. Youth diversion, youth probation and youth counselling will effectively move over to the Ministry for Children and Families. The Ministry of Attorney General will still have an extremely significant and large role in terms of the Crown and the police being involved in any diversion programs with respect to young persons.

Having said that, coming back to the question of the correspondence, I will make no excuses, other than simply saying I think we had a late session last year. Some of us took off on holidays and probably the staff did, too. In addition to that, my ministry actually responds to hundreds of letters every month. I have made it a practice to sign each and every one myself, which I'm supposed to do, and sometimes that delays the answers.

I regret that we weren't able to provide you with the information earlier. I understand that we had agreed to give 

[ Page 2579 ]

you all of the information during the estimates. It may have taken some time to find the information that you asked for in the letter. I don't remember the contents of the letter or the response. However, it is the policy of the Ministry of Attorney General -- and I'm sure of all ministries, but I'll speak for my ministry only. . . . This ministry in particular cannot function in a non-partisan and non-political way with much of its mandate, as it must, without being open to yourself and to members of the public in terms of quick and expeditious responses. If we've been remiss in that, my apologies.

G. Plant: I want to turn, then, to another issue. I thank the minister for his apology. Returning to this issue, I do so probably from a different perspective than I would have done an hour ago, because an hour ago I didn't have a document entitled "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System."

The issue is the extent to which the protection of the public in the context of things like violent crime is in fact a priority of this government. I noted that in the 1994-95 annual report of the Ministry of Attorney General, which would be from two years ago, is a letter from the Attorney, the beginning of which includes this passage: "During this period, the ministry, again, made protection of the public its first priority, laying the groundwork for a tougher approach to serious crime, especially crimes of violence, coupled with an increasing role for communities and for victims of crime in the justice system."

It's really that expression of the first priority being protection of the public that I want to comment on, because about a year after this annual report, we had the throne speech from the government, in which the government expressly stated its commitment to "making our neighbourhoods safer." Members of the public who come to talk to me about justice issues tell me that public safety is an enormous priority for them. Yet I can't help but say that there was nothing in the throne speech this year about public safety and really nothing in the budget speech to express any particular level of commitment to public safety on the part of this government. People read throne speeches as a signal of what's important to the government, as a signal of the priorities of the government for the session that's about to begin.

I guess I want to ask the Attorney General, in light of the fact that there is nothing in the throne speech about public safety. . . . Once you allow for the various adjustments that the minister referred to in terms of the spending -- and we'll come back to those -- there really is a very modest increase in spending for public safety components of his ministry's expenditures. What is the signal, then, that the people of British Columbia are supposed to have been sent about the government's commitment to public safety?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's important to recognize that whether or not public safety is ever mentioned in the throne speech, public safety is an ongoing priority. If there are any major new initiatives that might be in the works, they might be mentioned. But public safety is always a concern. It has been a concern for previous Attorneys General, and it is the same with me.

In fact, just recently we were at a conference of Attorneys General in Fredericton. We were raising issues around criminal harassment and stalking, asking that sentences be toughened. I am in the press every other day, every week, raising issues of concern. We have reallocated resources within the ministry to make sure that our drive to stop violent offenders in their tracks does not suffer from lack of funds. We have reallocated or refocused our energies, so we've tried to retailor some programs that might not be as important as public safety per se.

I think it's important to recognize that throne speeches do not necessarily contain ongoing commitments. They contain new initiatives. We have actually had many new initiatives in the last 18 months. We set up a new unsolved-homicides squad; we funded the DNA lab; we also funded a bold initiative in forensic dentistry; we funded the prostitution unit; we just set up a hate-crime team; we did the centralized registry of protection orders. There are many others. So there is no question that we have an ongoing commitment to public safety, to preventing crime from happening.

What's happening now is that we want to refocus our energies. In addition to maintaining our vigil on the issue of violent crime, we want to refocus our energies on the front end, so that we can deal with non-violent offenders in a way that is beneficial both for them and for the communities and the victims. As well, fiscally, we save huge amounts of resources, so we can put them at the front end to provide skills and those kinds of initiatives that deal with general issues in the community.

In addition to this, if I may remind the hon. member, in a time of fiscal constraint, we also put at least $150,000 into the neighbourhood crime prevention offices in Vancouver. Over the last year and a half we have engaged in many new initiatives, as I've indicated. We'll continue to do so. We will find the resources if there is an initiative that we think -- or if the hon. member is able to persuade me -- should be undertaken.

G. Plant: Thank you, minister, for that response. It was good to be reminded of some of the initiatives that were undertaken before. Of course, part of the challenge here is to identify the new initiatives and the new money that's being dedicated towards them. I look forward to perhaps exploring some of that in greater detail.

The minister said one thing in the course of that answer that I want to pick up on, when he talked about refocusing energy on the front end and then about skills, and things like that. I'm not sure if I know what the minister means by the front end. What kinds of programs does he have in mind when he's talking about initiatives at the front end? I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General for that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In general terms, when one engages in diversion and precourt resolution of some of these issues, firstly, you save huge amounts of resources. You bring the communities into the resolution of those issues; the communities become owners of that part of the justice system in a very real fashion. The victims have a role, and the offenders are disciplined and are accountable to the communities.

In the process of doing all that, we will be able to save resources. For instance, over the next ten years or so, if we continue to do our business in the way we are presently doing, we would be spending at least $1 billion on both new court facilities and corrections facilities. Those are just the capital expenditures. Then one would have to find operational expenditures on an ongoing basis.

We can then put that money into the communities, to do both more diversion and more community programs for youth and for those who need them, as well as put those savings into other facilities not necessarily within this ministry -- into education, health care, alleviating poverty, all those kinds of issues. This is a comprehensive view of justice reform. Justice does not exist on its own in a community.

[ Page 2580 ]

G. Plant: I think that was sort of the answer I was hoping for -- that is to say, a recognition that the front end has a bunch of components to it. One is, I suppose, the front end of entry into the justice system and the opportunities that exist to try and deal with problems there in a way that avoids sending people unnecessarily into the rest of the criminal justice system. But also, importantly, there's the recognition that we have much that we can do as a society in other parts of our lives and communities to prevent these problems from arising in the first place. In the long run, I'm sure the minister and I would both agree that's probably the best investment for British Columbia. I do expect that we will be returning to diversion initiatives and other initiatives in due course.

I want to talk now about the issue of overall spending, which the minister referred to at the end of his opening remarks. I think the minister said -- and it's certainly my reading of the estimates -- that the estimates that were published in June of last year estimated that ministry spending would be around about $905 million. I'm told that if you were to factor out from that figure the financial effect of the transfer out of youth corrections, then you get restated estimates of about $844 million for spending last year.

I understand, then, that as part of the budgeting process for this year, the ministry undertook a calculation of what would be required to maintain the status quo of program delivery across the ministry -- that is, how much more money would be needed to keep up with the demands on existing programs created from whatever source, including population growth, as the minister says. Adding to that, I understand that there was a conscientious attempt within the ministry this year to try to project funding demands for certain programs -- statutory programs, I think, and special programs -- in a way that was more properly reflective of the actual experience of expenditures in those programs over the last few years.

[11:00]

So with all those considerations, the net figure of what was needed to maintain the status quo was about $90 million. The actual projected expenditure increase is about $51 million, which would be just a little bit more than half of the money which the ministry thought it needed to maintain existing programs and adequately fund, I suppose, the new ones. I should probably pause here to find out if I've made any significant errors in my recitation of that sort of general picture of funding.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's view is correct.

G. Plant: I heard the minister explain that of the $51 million in new money, most of it -- well, we could argue about whether it is most of it or not -- or approximately $36 million of it is going to fund statutory accounts. I think he said that another $5 million or so was going to fund the victims-of-crime support services -- I may be wrong on that. But the reality is that there's really very little additional money to fund the bulk of the ministry's programs. The minister spoke about the need to reallocate spending priorities within his ministry to cope with that reality. But it seems to me, stepping back from that process for a moment, that the general impression one gets is that the status quo of program delivery will not be maintained, because the minister wanted more money than he got from Treasury Board or whoever it is who makes these decisions.

I guess when we examine issues of justice reform, my concern is to ask whether we're reforming the justice system because principles of proper justice tell us that we need to do that, or whether we're driven to reform just because we don't have the kind of money we need to deliver existing programs. My sense is that the initiatives in the announcements last year, and probably even in this strategic reform document, are really driven more by a reaction to spending realities than the other way around. That is to say, the ministry isn't going to government and saying: "Would you please give us $40 million less than we would like, because we've actually decided that we can redesign the justice system in a way that's more cost-effective." Instead, it's the other way around. It is: "Well, we have a whole lot less money than we really would like. So what can we do to try and adjust for that?"

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I became the Attorney General in August of 1995. And I remember attending in September of 1995 my first consultation with the bar, the judiciary and representatives from the B.C. chiefs of police, with my deputies present. At that point in time, even if one believes everything one reads in the press, there were none of the fiscal constraints that were being mentioned anywhere. We were talking about a fundamental reform of the justice system. At that time, we were trying to engage the bar and the judiciary in that debate as to how we can do things better in the courts and how we can do other initiatives that might complement what the courts do. So it is not true that this drive for justice reform is fuelled by fiscal considerations. However, let me say this to you. As the fiscal realities hit home shortly thereafter, the drive became much faster. I think it would be fair and candid for anyone to say that, and that's true.

Whether the drive for justice reform is fuelled by fiscal considerations at this point or originated 18 months to two years ago due to other considerations, the fact is that we're engaged in justice reform. I think justice reform in that context ought to be looked at on its own. If the argument is that there isn't enough money to deal with the needs of the ministry, I can tell you that we will meet the needs of the ministry within the budget that we have. We'll do everything possible to make sure that it's done.

G. Plant: I understand the Attorney General's position on that, and not surprisingly. . . . I think that at some level you have to say: "Yes, here is a reform initiative. Let's examine it on its own merits." Having tried to do that over the past year, it has occurred to me that it was difficult to find a coherent vision being developed. It looked to me more like things were happening as reactions to spending decisions. If, in fact, the minister and his ministry have now developed a coherent theory and model for justice reform as a result of the extraordinary pressures placed on him, then that's a great achievement. Someone on the other side of the room is shaking his head indicating no. Maybe that's just an indication that I shouldn't look for too much in what has been announced today.

I recall, for example, in February listening to the Attorney General on an open-line show in Vancouver explaining the decision around courthouse closures. Almost the entire context of the defence of the courthouse closure decision was around the fact that Treasury Board had asked the minister and his ministry to cut $15 million to $20 million from the court services budget and that the minister and his ministry had made a considerable achievement in keeping the expenditure reduction to quite a lower level. In effect, he was saying -- this is not what the minister said, but it was sort of something like this: "I could have been asked to close 80 courthouses. Isn't it a great thing that I only closed 11?"

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Even fewer than that.

[ Page 2581 ]

G. Plant: I mean, I appreciate the Attorney General's desire to want to examine the reform initiative on a stand-alone basis. But I tried to do that, and it just seems to me that there is all kinds of evidence that what has been called reform up until this point doesn't include a lot of reform initiatives. To be fair, we'll examine some of my particular concerns in due course. I don't mean to say that initiatives around family justice centres and diversion and things like that are not properly reform initiatives. But initiatives to close courthouses. . . . I must say that I've had a great deal of difficulty figuring out how the English language could be stretched to describe courthouse closures as a justice reform, particularly when I hear the Attorney talk about access to justice. It seems to me that the general effect of closing courthouses in communities across British Columbia is to make justice less accessible rather than more so.

In any event, I have the Attorney General's assurance that program needs will be met, that the ministry will do its job with the funds available. I think that's a helpful assurance, but it's one that I have to say is going to require close examination. I think all of us were struck by the fact that yesterday's census information showed just how strong the growth of population is in British Columbia. As much as we might want to hope and to work hard towards avoiding that scenario of a billion dollars being necessary within ten years for new courts and prisons, it's going to be awfully hard work, I think, to maintain program delivery at anything like the status quo level when funding is, in effect, falling rather than rising.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, there's no question that with the public attitude in terms of the need for incarceration of many offenders, population growth and the like, there are pressures on many aspects of what we do. But we will do our best to make sure that we live within our means. It's not always possible, but we're going to try hard.

Let me just go back to what the hon. member said around access to justice. It has been a traditional view of the justice system that one must have a courthouse in any major community. I think one has to begin to talk about equitable justice and equitable access to justice rather than equal access to justice in terms of the physical proximity of courthouses. In larger urban areas or growing urban areas, one could afford to travel distances because the transportation might be available, whereas in the rural areas perhaps one cannot because there are much longer distances and transportation isn't available. So if I had the money -- and I don't -- I would definitely continue the regionalizing approach that we have in the urban and growing areas where you can regionalize justice centres, but I would make it physically more accessible in the outlying rural areas, where people have to travel much longer distances and don't have the transportation available to do that.

That's not to argue with my hon. friend. It is just that as I have been grappling with these issues, I'm very aware of the fact that when you lose a courthouse in a community, people are very concerned. There's no question about that. Sometimes there aren't the transportation facilities. That's why we reconsidered the issues around Chilliwack and Maple Ridge and the like, and that's why we didn't consider restoring West Vancouver, because it's only six or seven kilometres or six or seven minutes from one courthouse to the next. I think those are the kinds of difficult decisions that you have to make. I am cognizant of the fact that it's important to have both physical and non-physical access to justice, but it has to be equitable, in terms of the physical access to justice, rather than just equal.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks on that point. I think we will be driven to examine some of the specific instances of courthouse closures in due course. But while we're having this pleasant philosophical discussion at the level of generality, I want to talk about what I think is an interesting dichotomy -- and if I were grumpy or suffering from loss of sleep, I would probably call it a radical incoherence -- in a policy of a ministry which, on the one hand, speaks eloquently of the need to bring certain parts of our justice system into closer contact with communities. . . . The talk about diversion and the Sparwood story is surely an eloquent example of this. . . . It shows how successful we can be when we take problems that arise in communities and try to solve them in communities. All of us hear lots about sentencing circles and the importance of accountability for criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour in the community in which the behaviour has taken place -- and about the failure of justice for aboriginal people, because for so long across Canada justice for aboriginal people has quite often happened in courtrooms located hundreds of miles from reserves.

[11:15]

On the one hand, we hear and talk about the important need for bringing justice into a community to make it work. I think that includes making people who have committed crimes accountable for their offences to the community -- and in the community -- where those offences have been committed, even when you are at the level of violent offenders and you can't divert them. Yet, on the other hand, we are hearing about closing courthouses, which has the effect, I think, of making justice less accessible within communities, whether you call it more equitable or more equal, or less equitable or less equal. I'm certainly prepared to think about what those terms mean, but it does seem to me that at some level, there is an incoherence in approach. I'm not saying that bringing coherence to that is easy, but it does seem to me that at some level the minister is talking out of both sides of his mouth if he says that he wants justice to work in communities but that at the same time it's necessary to close courthouses in communities.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really wish to engage in this fuzzy philosophical debate much longer, so let's get to the real issues. When we talk about diversion and precourt resolution of issues, I don't believe a courthouse is required. What we want to do is reduce the flow of cases through the courts, hopefully. There are communities in British Columbia where the courthouses are used only 10 or 15 percent of the time.

I want to do diversion and, on the civil side, mediation, arbitration and counselling, and see if we can reduce the flow of cases through those courts to a level where they come to the Attorney General and say: "Here is a fa�ade, a courthouse that we don't use other than maybe one hour a month. Maybe you can shut it down and we can go to the next community." Currently, that's not possible, because it's a chicken-and-egg proposition. But I think we have to begin to do both at the same time. It is difficult, and that's why you perceive that there is incoherence. But give it some time, and I think that we'll all understand it.

G. Plant: Let's move on to another subject, although temporarily, I suppose. The issue I want to talk about for a moment now is the organization of the ministry. Early this year Mr. Owen departed as the Deputy Attorney General.

I don't want the Attorney General to think for a moment that he successfully resolved the incoherence, by the way, Mr. Chair. We will come back to it. The fundamental problem is not what you do with the kid who shoplifts from a shoe store 

[ Page 2582 ]

in Sparwood. We may have an answer to that. But what happens to the kid who commits a rape in Sparwood, and we say that the place that you'll be tried for that rape is Kamloops? How effective will that be? Again, I don't think it's an easy question to answer, but I want to make sure that the difficulty presents itself.

On the reorganization of the ministry. . . . It's not perhaps a large issue, but I want to be sure that I understand it. Mr. Owen is no longer the Deputy Attorney General, and there has been, in effect, a reorganization that sees certain branches and departments of the ministry that were formerly under him moved, so that they are under the deputy minister of justice -- who, for that purpose, has now become the Deputy Attorney General. Leaving the criminal justice branch in a separate place -- and I will ask some questions about it in a moment. . . . Was there a policy rationale for this reorganization that took what was essentially a bifurcated ministry and moved most of one half of it over into another place? Or was this reorganization dictated by other considerations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it was much simpler than that. We had a Deputy Attorney General who is no longer with us, and we decided that we would have one Deputy Attorney General, except for the purposes of the Criminal Code of Canada, where the ADAG is now the Deputy Attorney General.

G. Plant: I wonder if the minister could explain, then, with respect to the ADAG and the criminal justice office, the reporting hierarchy as it now operates, in respect of matters like direct indictments and things like that, under this new structure.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the matters referred to by the hon. member, the ADAG reports directly to the Attorney General.

G. Plant: As I understand it, then, the functions in relation to prosecution -- which under the Crown Counsel Act could be discharged at various times by either one or more of the ADAG, the Deputy Attorney General and the minister himself -- are now, as a practical matter as a result of certain decisions made, being exercised by either one or more of the minister himself or the ADAG.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that's true. So that we don't leave it as unclear as it might sound, my only function is that if I were to give a direction on a particular prosecution, it would have to be gazetted. If there are any other technical issues, we have the ADAG sitting over there, and we can have him come here and explain them.

G. Plant: I'm grateful for that answer. The issue that I wish to make sure we have on the record, as it were, is the need to protect the independence of the prosecutorial function, and I know that this is a need which is shared by the minister and his ministry. I want to have set out here what I understand to be the basic arrangement, and I think the minister has stated it the way I understand it. So that's helpful.

I want to move to a different subject, and this is all sort of by way of a general introduction. This is quite a different subject. The Ministry of Employment and Investment issued a press release on March 13. The title of the press release was: "Government Rules Out Las Vegas-Style Casinos and VLTs in Bars and Pubs." Basically, the press release is an announcement of what the government's new policy on gaming was at that point. The details of that policy are fleshed out in the text of the press release, and there's a quote that I want to read. It goes like this: among other things, "British Columbia's new gaming policy provides that video lottery terminals will not be allowed in bars and pubs, a Las Vegas-style casino will not be established in B.C. . . ." Then, skipping a few -- I really read those out just to give the minister a bit of context -- there is a specific one: "The province will fund dedicated police and prosecution resources to address illegal gaming." My question, then, for the minister: is any such funding provided for in the estimates for the 1997-98 year for this ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously there is some lag between the announcement and the time the policy is effective on the ground. When the policy results in concrete expansion of gaming, obviously at that time more resources would come and we would deal with those issues.

G. Plant: I think that was a slightly longer form of "no" -- that is, there is not in the 1997-98 estimates of this ministry any specific funding already dedicated for police and prosecution resources to address illegal gaming pursuant to the new policy announced on March 13.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct. But I can also assure you that if gaming expansion suddenly takes effect within this fiscal year, there is a gaming enforcement branch within my ministry already. If we need extra resources, we will have to depend on that assurance.

G. Plant: I appreciate that answer. Part of the challenge here, of course, is understanding where the money will come from, because we've already heard the ministry speak about reallocation of funding. It may be that the minister will have to rob Peter to pay Paul, to use an old expression, because if we don't already have specific funds set aside, then they're going to have to come from some other place in the ministry, or else we're going to be in the position of having to deal with the issue by special warrants. I was really concerned, among other things, to know whether this policy had reached that stage of implementation where it has already seen some flesh in the estimates and what kinds of arrangements may be already in place to prepare for this step forward or backwards in our province -- as the Attorney General may think.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I indicated, there are no extra resources allocated to that. There is no need at this time. If the need arises during this fiscal year, we would, of course, go to the contingencies vote and get the money.

G. Plant: I want to return to the subject of what is sometimes called alternate dispute resolution, because reference has been made to it both in the criminal context and the civil context. But one point that I forgot to ask about in estimates may require a technical answer that I would be happy to hear about later. I'm curious to know what the status of the International Commercial Arbitration Centre is, in light of the government's professed commitment to advancing programs and policies that are intended to keep people out of the court system. That was an issue we talked about in the estimates last summer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I recall correctly -- and my memory isn't always that great -- when this issue arose and we indicated to the centre that there were no more funds, they approached us, and we advanced some funds for them to subsist on for some further time. Then we also made a prom-

[ Page 2583 ]

ise to them that if they could get a certain amount of funding from other sources, we might be able to pitch in about a third of their need. I understand that they are very close to securing funding from the federal government and from private sources. Well, there you are: I've been given the exact amount. We have agreed to assist the centre with funding to a maximum of $83,000 per year for the next three years, as part of a proposed tripartite funding arrangement with the federal government and the private sector.

G. Plant: I have one more thing, before I turn to a number of questions that I think will deal specifically with the court services branch. There was a question that occurred to me when I was looking through some of the press releases over the last year about youth action teams, and I wasn't quite sure where to put that question, so I'm going to put it here.

[11:30]

The minister may recall that last summer there were some announcements of regional youth workers for the youth action team initiative. These regional youth workers have the interesting task of trying to help youth action teams plan certain activities in communities. I think that the press releases spoke of the fact that these action teams would lead the Nights Alive initiative in something like 23 communities across British Columbia. Perhaps I could impose on the minister to provide us with an update on the youth action teams and Nights Alive and the funding that those programs are going to get in the year that we're now in.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This funding is ongoing. So far, youth action teams are currently operating in over 50 communities throughout the province, with over 700 youth involved who have completed 64 youth-led crime prevention projects to date.

Nights Alive is now being implemented in ten cities and, of course, our youth-led 841-KOZ program has completed many workshops. I can give you those figures if you're interested. As well, our new crime prevention toolkit for youth was completed in the fall of '96, and over 4,000 copies have been distributed to every school, youth police officer, crime prevention office and youth agency provincewide.

The All Together Now project is currently developing crime prevention projects and resources in six languages, and this project is being completed by five inner-city elementary schools in Vancouver, Nanaimo and Surrey. I actually had the privilege of going to two of those schools in the last year with respect to that project. And, of course, we have the B.C. youth police officer network, with 143 youth officers provincewide.

G. Plant: So I take it that the government is going to maintain the same level of funding for this program during the current year as last year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the funding for this year is maintained.

G. Plant: Now I want to turn again to the subject of courthouse closures. I want to begin by referring to the capital review which the government undertook following the announcement made at the end of last June, which essentially froze a broad range of capital spending projects across British Columbia, including some capital spending projects for this ministry. I'm not sure if there was a review committee struck, but a report was put together, and the final report was released in January of this year. There's a page of that report which deals specifically with the Ministry of Attorney General. Included in that page is a statement that the Ministry of Attorney General forecasted that a status quo approach would produce a shortfall of courtrooms by the year 2001. I know that was probably not the minister's statement; it was the statement of the review team. But I wonder if the minister can explain what that statement means.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If we do not take any reform measures, I think we will have to spend a billion dollars over the next ten years or so to build both courtrooms and correctional facilities. That's what that particular comment refers to. We have excess unused capacity in many areas of the province. We are not using 40 percent of the courtrooms at any given time in British Columbia; they are in areas where there might not be a need. So where there is a need, we may have to build more, while the others remain unused in other centres. That poses a problem as well. But because of population growth in certain areas, there's more need in certain areas than others, so we may have to do that. We are hoping that our reform measures, both in criminal justice and in civil and family justice, will take care of this issue and alleviate the need.

G. Plant: The courthouse closure announcements were part of other announcements. From my point of view, as a humble member of the public, the two principal documents that tell me about these announcements are press releases -- there are more than two but. . . . The first one was a press release of November 13 of last year. The title of the press release was: "Major Reform of B.C.'s Justice System Underway." The gist of the press release was the announcement of a plan for comprehensive changes to the justice system, with the goal of maintaining a justice system reflecting the priorities of British Columbians and the need to reallocate resources. Then it says: "The Attorney General outlined reforms to the justice system which focus on. . . ." There are six bullets, and I want to go through them. Actually, they won't all be court services issues, but the first one is: "tougher prosecution of serious and violent offenders, to ensure public safety." My question for the Attorney General is: what was the new reform that was announced on November 13, 1996? What reform did the Attorney General have in mind when he announced tougher prosecution of serious and violent offenders, to ensure public safety? That's a long way of asking: what was new, as opposed to what was old?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This particular issue even arose at the press conference that I gave at that time. Firstly, this is a restatement of a continuing commitment to be tough on serious, high-risk, violent offenders. Secondly, it's a commitment to continue pressing Ottawa for various initiatives, such as amendments to the prostitution sections of the Criminal Code and dealing with their Bill C-55, which creates a category of long-term offenders -- our concern is that be changed so that our approach to dangerous offenders is not diminished or weakened. Those are the kinds of issues, and that's an ongoing commitment to deal with those issues.

G. Plant: The second bullet would read in the context like this: "The Attorney General outlined reforms to the justice system, which focus on . . . a commitment to more effective policing, including following through with funding for 100 new police officers." Now, I take it that the 100 new police officers referred to there are the same as the 100 police officers referred to in the 1996 throne speech.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

[ Page 2584 ]

G. Plant: So what was new on November 13, 1996, about the commitment to more effective policing? What new program was being announced? What new policy was being announced? What was new, as a reform to the justice system, in relation to this commitment to more effective policing made on November 13, 1996? Or was this, again, something that might properly be called a restatement of a continuing commitment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latter.

G. Plant: The third bullet of the press release -- which is the list of reforms that were being outlined on November 13, 1996 -- reads like this: "crime prevention, including early intervention and holding non-violent, less serious offenders accountable through increased diversion programs instead of committing them to jail." So, again, the question is: what was new on November 13, 1996? What was the reform? Was it a newly announced major reform of the justice system that was announced on November 13 in this bullet? Or would this one be more properly described as a restatement of a continuing commitment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, let me go back to the first two as well as the third one that my hon. friend has raised. I think we are splitting hairs. When you restate a continuing commitment to what you have been doing and say that you will do more in addition to that, one can argue that that is either a bit of the old and a bit of the new or substantially just the old. So I don't know what my friend is driving at. I don't particularly enjoy the thought of two lawyers arguing over these kinds of issues.

However, let me go back to the third one. We have had diversion in British Columbia for a long time, but we haven't had diversion, really. It's been isolated to areas here and there; there has been no centralized policy on this issue. Right now the criminal justice branch is working with the police and the communities to develop guidelines. We are going to commit $1 million to set up new diversion programs in British Columbia this year, and that's the commitment that's unarticulated in that particular statement.

G. Plant: Well, I don't want to split hairs. The goal here is to find out what's new, but I also don't want to be coy about my agenda here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You're not.

G. Plant: I'm sure I'm not. The virtue of two lawyers arguing with each other is that the argument becomes transparent pretty quickly. I'm trying to figure out what is new in all of this, if anything. I'm not so sure that there is anything new, and I don't mean to split hairs. If there was something that was new. . . . The Attorney General spoke about a little bit of old and a little bit of new. Well, tell me what the little bit of new is. If the little bit of new didn't exist on November 13, but now we know that it consists of a million dollars of new funding for diversion programs, then that's something I'm interested in pursuing. I'm wondering what those programs are and where they're going to be implemented, and that sort of thing. Now, if it's simply that we're in a process of development, then that's the answer to the question, too.

[11:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some of these issues are more clearly outlined in the strategic plan that we've just issued today.

If you read the top line of the press release before you go to the bullets, it says: "The Attorney General outlined reforms to the justice system." I don't get a sense anywhere that those are new reforms. They are significantly increased and enlarged reforms, and faster-paced. If your argument is that these ought to have been new -- I'm sorry, but some of them aren't new. But we are going to work on them much harder than ever before, and we're determined to do that.

G. Plant: I want to say something. My argument is also about honest communication. I think people who were part of the process around what happened in the middle of November did think -- and maybe wrongly so -- that perhaps something new was underway. My concern is to find out whether it was something new. I respect the Attorney General's explanation, which, I suppose, is in part pointing out that sometimes when you bring together different strands of different initiatives and give them new emphasis, it's quite proper to call that a reform initiative.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada